Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, I don't get the "Glenn Beck incited someone to kill".

Should we REALLY blame Manson (Marilyn) for Columbine?

Should we blame rap for underprivileged negro children becoming drug dealers and/or gangsters?

Should we blame Eminem when someone kills a gay person (even though Em doesn't practice what he preaches and is in fact friends with Elton John)?

The best way to ignore nut jobs is to not listen to what they say. I did so by not listening to or watching the State of the Union speech as written by our Overlords speech writers.

Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, I don't get the "Glenn Beck incited someone to kill".

Should we REALLY blame Manson (Marilyn) for Columbine?

Should we blame rap for underprivileged negro children becoming drug dealers and/or gangsters?

Should we blame Eminem when someone kills a gay person (even though Em doesn't practice what he preaches and is in fact friends with Elton John)?

The best way to ignore nut jobs is to not listen to what they say. I did so by not listening to or watching the State of the Union speech as written by our Overlords speech writers.

And Fate rolls a 1 on his dodge check.

Monster Rain wrote:Because the guy was a model citizen before Glenn Beck turned him into an automaton of death? From what I can tell this guy already had problems and something was going to set him off sooner or later. Probably that damn Jodie Foster.

Yes, there's lots of crazies who are a second away from freaking out entirely. When a guy goes on television and spouts nonsense about the government's imminent plans for socialist takeover of the country, that's likely to fuel the fantasies of the crazies who are then more likely to be set off. Actions that are likely to set off crazies are dangerous. Therefore Beck's show is dangerous.

If there was an demonstrable causal relationship between Glenn Beck and violence the show would already be off the air.

People don't like what he says and want him removed, end of.

Really, really take close note of the fact that I do not believe Glenn Beck's show should be taken off the air. Really think about that, and try to form an understanding of my argument that actually relates to what I am saying.

Glenn Beck is dangerous. His show is built around panicking people about the imminent danger to their freedoms, and many people who watch his show are mentally unwell. We've already seen the result of this once, and we're just lucky no-one was harmed.

But I believe it would be more dangerous for government to take his show off the air, because of the precedent it would set, and the threat it might be used to censor important but politically dangerous speach in future.

So no, I'm really not looking to have Beck taken off the air. But I believe people need to recognise that there is a real danger in pundits spouting irresponsible nonsense such as his.

Every time a woman is beaten Eminem should go to jail.

Eminem wrote:You want what you can't have, ooh girl that's too damn bad
Don't touch what you can't grab, end up with two backhands
Put anthrax on a tampax, and slap you till you can't stand

The horror.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Really, really take close note of the fact that I do not believe Glenn Beck's show should be taken off the air. Really think about that, and try to form an understanding of my argument that actually relates to what I am saying.

I didn't say "sebster" I said "people." I get that you said you didn't want him taken off the air.

sebster wrote:Glenn Beck is dangerous. His show is built around panicking people about the imminent danger to their freedoms, and many people who watch his show are mentally unwell. We've already seen the result of this once, and we're just lucky no-one was harmed.

Many people who watch any show are mentally unwell. Many people who read books and listen to music are unwell. Do you need a list of people that have had crazy reactions to various types of media?

Is John Hinckley Jodie Foster's fault? Is Mark David Chapman J.D. Salingers's?

Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, I don't get the "Glenn Beck incited someone to kill".

But the only way the nutter knew about the Tides Foundation was through Beck's show. You can't pretend he didn't have an influence.

Should we REALLY blame Manson (Marilyn) for Columbine?

Should we blame rap for underprivileged negro children becoming drug dealers and/or gangsters?

Should we blame Eminem when someone kills a gay person (even though Em doesn't practice what he preaches and is in fact friends with Elton John)?

No, we shouldn't 'blame' anyone for anything, that's a simplistic and frankly useless way to address the issue. We should have an informed debate about the influence of various media on people's actions.

The best way to ignore nut jobs is to not listen to what they say.

No, the best way to respond to nut jobs is to encourage informed debate that addresses the issues they raise with informed, considered opinions. You don't fight nonsense with silence. You fight it with reality.

I did so by not listening to or watching the State of the Union speech as written by our Overlords speech writers.

And again (and I'm guessing again and again and again) the idea that someone's speach is dangerous is entirely seperate to the idea that it should be banned. You can recognise the first without believing the second is a valid response.

Fateweaver wrote:I find it terrifying that liberal pansies think there is no "bad" to all the illegals entering our country;...

Actually, the negatives of illegal immigration tend to be ignored by people of a certain income, or education threshold. For example, I'm never going to compete with an illegal immigrant for employment, so their presence means nothing to me on a personal level. In fact, if anything, the presence of a large number of Spanish speakers significantly improves my ability to find employment.

Its not like the conservative establishment is chomping at the bit to tighten immigration controls.

Fateweaver wrote:
...that Muslim extremists should be ignored or not taken seriously while at the same time whining about the Westboro Baptists protesting funerals of gay or Catholic peoples; etc, etc.

How many extreme, Muslim protests have taken place in the US?

Fateweaver wrote:
Liberals don't want the US turning into a police State but instead want it turned into a nanny State. How is a nanny state better than a police state?

Is that a serious question?

I mean that honestly, because from where I'm sitting you're basically equating the present day UK with fascist Italy.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Because the guy was a model citizen before Glenn Beck turned him into an automaton of death? From what I can tell this guy already had problems and something was going to set him off sooner or later. Probably that damn Jodie Foster.

Yes, there's lots of crazies who are a second away from freaking out entirely. When a guy goes on television and spouts nonsense about the government's imminent plans for socialist takeover of the country, that's likely to fuel the fantasies of the crazies who are then more likely to be set off. Actions that are likely to set off crazies are dangerous. Therefore Beck's show is dangerous.

If there was an demonstrable causal relationship between Glenn Beck and violence the show would already be off the air.

People don't like what he says and want him removed, end of.

Really, really take close note of the fact that I do not believe Glenn Beck's show should be taken off the air. Really think about that, and try to form an understanding of my argument that actually relates to what I am saying.

Glenn Beck is dangerous. His show is built around panicking people about the imminent danger to their freedoms, and many people who watch his show are mentally unwell. We've already seen the result of this once, and we're just lucky no-one was harmed.

But I believe it would be more dangerous for government to take his show off the air, because of the precedent it would set, and the threat it might be used to censor important but politically dangerous speach in future.

So no, I'm really not looking to have Beck taken off the air. But I believe people need to recognise that there is a real danger in pundits spouting irresponsible nonsense such as his.

He's only dangerous to the people that don't agree with his point of view. Molesters don't find other molesters dangerous; game hunters don't find other game hunters dangerous; people who like or have a fondness for rap don't think Eminem or Snoop or 50 Cent are dangerous.

People who like Beck are not "brainwashed" by him. That is a matter of your opinion. Just as it's my opinion that people who bought into Obamasiah's rhetoric and treat him like the next Savior are brainwashed.

Brainwashed is a term used by people who don't believe others can form their own opinion about someone or something, that is contradictory to their own, without having been influenced or shaped or moulded by some outside force.

I'm accused all the time by a certain poster of being brainwashed by GW because I'm not as cynical as he is and therefore I don't hate everything GW does. I'm brainwashed in his opinion but that is his opinion and he cannot say for a fact I am.

*Disclaimer: I used brainwashed so no this is not me pointing the finger. But when mud gets slung my way I grab a backhoe and sling the whole effing mud puddle back.

He's only dangerous to the people that don't agree with his point of view. Molesters don't find other molesters dangerous; game hunters don't find other game hunters dangerous; people who like or have a fondness for rap don't think Eminem or Snoop or 50 Cent are dangerous.

Why are molesters immune to molestation...?

Dr. Temujin wrote:

You seriously think the economy collapse started with Bush Sr. and not Clinton?

to FateWeaver: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Clinton actually improved the economy, and that by the end of his second term, our national debt was starting to get smaller.
Perhaps I'm getting in way over my head on this, but I just wanted to point this out.
As for my opinion on the topic, I sincerely wish that Glenn Beck would just shut up already.

Saying that any President 'improved' the economy is really not a verifiable claim. The economy is so ridiculouslly complex, that almost no one can fully predict what will happen when you change something, and more importantly, things take time to propagate. Saying that Clinton 'improved the economy' is the same as saying that Hoover caused the Great Depression...yes, he was in office at the time, but controlling the economy is a power even beyond the President's hands.

Monster Rain wrote:I didn't say "sebster" I said "people." I get that you said you didn't want him taken off the air.

And once you realise that your descriptor doesn't apply to at least me, and I'm one of only two people to respond to your claim, you need to start considering that your claim may not be a valid descriptor of many people talking about Glenn Beck.

Many people who watch any show are mentally unwell. Many people who read books and listen to music are unwell. Do you need a list of people that have had crazy reactions to various types of media?

Is John Hinckley Jodie Foster's fault? Is Mark David Chapman J.D. Salingers's?

Do we really need to play the silly game of pretending that all media is completely unknowable in how it might influence people. Do we need to pretend that Catcher in the Rye is just as likely to inspire someone to political violence as Glenn Beck talking about the conspiratorial plotting of the Tides Foundation?

Because that's a very silly, and very pointless game. Please tell me you're not going to try it.

People verifiably killed because of Catcher in the Rye- 1

People killed because of the Glenn Beck Show- 0

The word you're looking for, gentlemen, is amazing.

Fateweaver wrote:He's only dangerous to the people that don't agree with his point of view. Molesters don't find other molesters dangerous; game hunters don't find other game hunters dangerous; people who like or have a fondness for rap don't think Eminem or Snoop or 50 Cent are dangerous.

No, he's dangerous to anyone who thinks it is bad when people are killed for no reason. Which is everyone outside of the lunatic fringe.

People who like Beck are not "brainwashed" by him. That is a matter of your opinion. Just as it's my opinion that people who bought into Obamasiah's rhetoric and treat him like the next Savior are brainwashed.

No-one is talking about anyone being brainwashed by anyone. Don't pretend that's some opinion of mine so you can attack it. How about you stop making gak up and actually follow the conversation.

And no, not every political opinion is equal. Pretending that is true is fuzzy non-thought, the kind that the leftwing academics embraced when postmodernism reached its silliest peak, but is found more and more within the rightwing, as people look defend utter fantasy as being perfectly valid 'opinion'.

[quoteI'm accused all the time by a certain poster of being brainwashed by GW because I'm not as cynical as he is and therefore I don't hate everything GW does. I'm brainwashed in his opinion but that is his opinion and he cannot say for a fact I am.

Don't get into it Monster.

People wanting GB off the air want him off because of personal distaste, NOT because he is dangerous.

Those thinking he is dangerous need to lock themselves in their basements because media portrays dangerous stuff all the time.

Rap, Manson, video games, gorn (gore porn like Hostel).

If everything considered dangerous was not allowed in public it'd be one boring, lame ass world.

Monster Rain wrote:People verifiably killed because of Catcher in the Rye- 1

People killed because of the Glenn Beck Show- 0

The word you're looking for, gentlemen, is amazing.

Look, here is a thing that is obvious, that no-one on God's Earth should have to ever explain to anyone else, ever. People take different interpretations from books. Some of these interpretations are sensible, and some are less sensible and often reflect more on the reader. For instance, it would be sensible to interpret from Catcher in the Rye that while we make strive to protect the innocence of children, maturity is inevitable, even if it is hard and even tragic. It would not be sensible to interpret that we need to shoot John Lennon. Because the former is sensible and the latter is deranged, people interpret the former a whole lot more than the latter. As such, the latter reflects only on the reader, and we can say with confidence that he probably would have shot John Lennon over some other stupid book instead.

Whereas the direct conclusion of Beck tirade against the Tides Foundation was to stop the organisation. It is reasonably likely that someone might decide to do that force. When we observe someone attempting to take that action, we can conclude they were following logically from the ideas Beck himself presented.

This is an obvious thing, and you know it. So can you please give it up, and we can go back to talking about the actual issues surrounding Beck?

Wait, Glenn Beck specifically said that someone should kill people at the Tides Foundation? I may have missed it.

I'm sure he criticized them, but what's wrong with that?

This is an "I hate Glenn Beck" thread. There is everything wrong with it.

So some nutball found out about the Tides Foundation watching his program. So we can agree that Glenn Becks program was educational?

Fateweaver wrote:Don't get into it Monster.

People wanting GB off the air want him off because of personal distaste, NOT because he is dangerous.

That's absurd. Why bother posting if you can't even pretend that you're following other people's points?

I have explained multiple times that while Beck is obviously dangerous, I think taking him off the air is more dangerous. You continue to ignore this because it is easier to dismiss people with vague accusation than come to understand their ideas. This describes most of your politics, really, and is largely the reason you continue to know almost nothing about how the world actually works.

Those thinking he is dangerous need to lock themselves in their basements because media portrays dangerous stuff all the time.

Rap, Manson, video games, gorn (gore porn like Hostel).

Which would be an excellent point if there wasn't a very obvious difference between fiction and political commentary. But there is a big difference, and this makes your point utterly stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Wait, Glenn Beck specifically said that someone should kill people at the Tides Foundation? I may have missed it.

I'm sure he criticized them, but what's wrong with that?

He didn't criticise it as much as claim it was part of communist conspiracy by Obama to destroy religion and redistribute the wealth. If true, then the need to stop that conspiracy would probably be justify violence. Whch would be a sensible interpretation of Beck's claims, if one was to believe Beck.

So again, you can see the obvious difference from someone deciding Catcher in the Rye somehow meant we should kill John Lennon.

Again, 7 pages in and every comment you think is aimed at YOU.

Reread posts from page 1-5. Lots of posters want the show off the air because they don't like him. His "dangerous" speech has nothing to do with anything.

In the wrong mind fact or fiction means nothing. It's been argued D&D in prison has been causing problems; that MM was behind the Columbine massacre; that Eminem is responsible for inciting hate crimes against homosexuals and women.

So the source of potentially dangerous behavior matters not when the subject exposed to the source is not mentally stable to begin with.

Again, too someone who doesn't agree with Beck for whatever reason he is dangerous. The same has been said about Palin, about Bush Jr and Sr. Conservatives feel that Obama and Muslims and illegals are dangerous. The real heart of the matter is how far are people willing to go to prove their "point" or their side right?

I don't like Obama and never will but I would never nor have I wished him assassinated, while there are those who think on the same side of the spectrum as me want him dead.

Get over yourself Seb. Political agenda/speeches/satire has nothing to do with it. What's to say he couldn't have stumbled upon info about the Tides Foundation on his own?

But yeah, let's blame others for the actions of people who obviously should have been eliminated from the gene pool at birth.

How them rose colored glasses treating you Seb?

Fateweaver wrote:
Those thinking he is dangerous need to lock themselves in their basements because media portrays dangerous stuff all the time.

Rap, Manson, video games, gorn (gore porn like Hostel).

If everything considered dangerous was not allowed in public it'd be one boring, lame ass world.

It seems you fail to grasp the difference between the lyrics of a rap song and the language and insinuation and extreme bias of a 'commentator' on a news channel.

You are not understanding the thread. It is not about song lyrics or computer games, it is not about the rights of an individual to hold vicious and repellent conspiracy nazi-communist theory as his version of the truth. It's about questioning the giving to that man a plinth to stand on and be touted as an educated opinion, it's about that man having a prime time spot on a purported news channel that carries the slogan 'fair and balanced'. Granting his extreme views, lacking in much evidence and insinuating or openly skating around notions of violence towards people who do not share his version of the truth, a sense of mistaken authority.

You are not reading other people's viewpoints here, you are reading poster names and filling the rest in with your own anti-liberal hyperbole. Perhaps FOX should give you a show...

Perhaps you should learn to fething read MGS.

Only people taken Beck seriously are nutjobs who are emotionally unstable.

It doesn't matter where the source comes from, only that someone nutty enough to act on it did and people got hurt.

Until it's proven GB incited violence against the Tides Foundation he has as much right to be on air as Jon Stewart or Bill Mahr. He ranted against them and their beliefs. He is no more dangerous than any of the WBC nutjobs.

If I was just picking names and filling in the blanks MGS I'd have 20 pages dedicated to slamming on you. I'm above that and apparently from the temper tantrum you are throwing right now above you.

A discussion on Glenn Beck's "shoot them in the head" comment, with full transcript.

It's painfully ignorant to read, but still, it kind of shows that his most infamous "incitement of violence" is anything but.

http://rightwingnews.com/2011/01/transcript-of-glenn-becks-shoot-them-in-the-head-comments/

Fateweaver wrote:Perhaps you should learn to fething read MGS.

Only people taken Beck seriously are nutjobs who are emotionally unstable.

It doesn't matter where the source comes from, only that someone nutty enough to act on it did and people got hurt.

Until it's proven GB incited violence against the Tides Foundation he has as much right to be on air as Jon Stewart or Bill Mahr. He ranted against them and their beliefs. He is no more dangerous than any of the WBC nutjobs.

Is his show put forward as comedy? No. It is listed as a political commentary program.

Is it on an entertainment channel? No. Fox claims to be a news channel.

So if someone is nutty enough to act on his claims, they would be acting on the claims of a political commentary program on a major news network.

As to me learning to read, I must point out that your second sentence isn't structured correctly and doesn't actually make any sense, so I'll make a deal with you and learn to read what you've written when you learn to fething write correctly, that seem fair?

Fateweaver wrote:
If I was just picking names and filling in the blanks MGS I'd have 20 pages dedicated to slamming on you. I'm above that and apparently from the temper tantrum you are throwing right now above you.

See, this is case in point. I'm not throwing a tantrum, I'm currently chuckling at your post whilst sipping a cold Guinness. Also, if you are above all that, why mention it? Do you expect reward? Please don't mistake my sarcasm and disdain for anger, I'm really not angry at you, just mildly repelled.

Your personal distaste for me apparently clouds the facts I am trying to state.

We get you don't like Beck. To you he is dangerous. But until he actually incites violence on purpose or seriously threatens someones life it would be, as Sebster said, even more dangerous to censure his show to the point of taking it off the air.

I'm chugging bottles of Grainbelt and laughing at you. At least we have something in common.

What I don't think anyone has noticed is that Mr beck has for lack of a better phrase more free speech than the rest of us. for example I would say perhaps 5 people know. or are able to guess, where I stand on most political and moral issues, If I were to be more open about my politics I could increase that number to about 30, if I were to openly assert my politics to people that number may reach the hundreds. However in one day Glenn beck can influence the minds of millions of people without even a pretense of debate or contradicting ideas. This leads me to conclude that the US and other nations that promise freedom of speech to it's citizens should actually promise freedom to speak to an equal and discerning audience. while not as catchy this seems to be a much more practical option.

Kragura wrote:What I don't think anyone has noticed is that Mr beck has for lack of a better phrase more free speech than the rest of us.

So develop a talent for broadcasting, work in the industry for a few decades and get a show for yourself if it bothers you that much.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kragura wrote:What I don't think anyone has noticed is that Mr beck has for lack of a better phrase more free speech than the rest of us.

So develop a talent for broadcasting, work in the industry for a few decades and get a show for yourself if it bothers you that much.

Everyone can't be a political pundit with a tv show, even if I was able to get on tv I would only be contributing to the problem.

I know someone said that Glenn Beck was musing over how to kill someone. I ain't digging through the pages this late at night to find the exact quote, but I would like to ask for video proof. If he really said something like that on his show, I want to hear it coming from him.

Let's just say I have a personal interest, due to (extended) family members watching his show. So please, put up a link to a video where he muses over if he could kill the man or not.

Because, if you can not, how do we know that he actually said it?

Slarg232 wrote:I know someone said that Glenn Beck was musing over how to kill someone. I ain't digging through the pages this late at night to find the exact quote, but I would like to ask for video proof. If he really said something like that on his show, I want to hear it coming from him.

Let's just say I have a personal interest, due to (extended) family members watching his show. So please, put up a link to a video where he muses over if he could kill the man or not.

Because, if you can not, how do we know that he actually said it?

I believe it was on his radio show, so 'video' evidence may not exist in the way you want.

Ahtman wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I know someone said that Glenn Beck was musing over how to kill someone. I ain't digging through the pages this late at night to find the exact quote, but I would like to ask for video proof. If he really said something like that on his show, I want to hear it coming from him.

Let's just say I have a personal interest, due to (extended) family members watching his show. So please, put up a link to a video where he muses over if he could kill the man or not.

Because, if you can not, how do we know that he actually said it?

I believe it was on his radio show, so 'video' evidence may not exist in the way you want.

Touche, though is there a audio transcript?